Verizon sued over GPL code in FiOS routers

Uh-oh, it looks like Verizon's been too busy ramping up speeds on its FiOS network to mind a little thing called the GPL -- the company has just been sued for using a GPL'd app called BusyBox in its FiOS routers but not providing the source code. BusyBox is a bundle of utilities used in embedded Linux applications, and the authors have been pretty vigilant in policing GPL-compliance in distributions that include it -- they've sued two other companies that have shipped devices with BusyBox, and gotten settlements both times. We're not sure what Verizon is doing with BusyBox on its routers or why it hasn't released the source, but expect this one to reach a resolution rather quickly.

Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, it is not meant as legal advice or analysis and should not be taken as such.

[Neebs @ Dec 7th 2007 8:44PM]

I thought the sponsored by Verizon Wireless icon near the gift guides were the article picture.
Consider your name Jeff Gerstmann Mr. Patel.

[Neebs @ Dec 7th 2007 8:45PM]

Disclaimer: Although this post was written by a comedian, it is not meant as seriousness and should not be taken as such.

[Neebs @ Dec 7th 2007 8:45PM]

Oh hi, triple post. *not written

[Ian @ Dec 7th 2007 8:47PM]

Wait. Just USING GPL software means you can get sued if the people that released it under the GPL don't think you're giving away the source? WTF?

FIOS router? The thing on the outside of the house? The broadband router they provide (which sits in the closet unused)? Some device in their data center?

I suspect this is the router they provide to end users. How is VZW responsible for that? It's just an Actiontec router. It's pretty good, but I don't use it.

Now I know how GPL "free" software guys make a living. Almost as bad as patent trolls. Or will the settlement go to just the lawyers? If so: GPL even more evil.

[Paul Tran @ Dec 7th 2007 8:57PM]

Hmm no its not just using, they're distributing these devices to end users, which contain the GPL'd code. And GPL states that if you redistribute software then under the GPL, you are obligated to release your changes under GPL, and release any changes to source code.

So if these guys take someone elses source code licensed under GPL, modify it, and re-distributed it, then they are 'obligated' to also release the source code.

[John @ Dec 7th 2007 11:37PM]

don't "think"? This isn't that they don't think verizon is giving away the source, this is verizon not giving away the source. And unlike patent trolls, people who write code under the GPL don't want to make money, they just want their projects to not get stolen. Patent trolls say, please, someone don't notice that we have this ambiguous patent, GPL licensers say, please, notice that we wrote this and it's helpful but make sure everyone benefits from our work and not just you.

[Backlin @ Dec 8th 2007 10:14AM]

Man, what is with these big companies not distributing their source code? First, ASUS, now Verizon.

[Ian @ Dec 7th 2007 11:52PM]

So Verizon delivers Actiontec routers to their users. A piece of hardware developed and sold by Actiontec yet Verizon is liable for the binaries that are on that piece of gear?

Let see. Who has the most money? Actiontec (or whoever builds the routers for VZ in this particular case) or Verizon? I guess that explains why they sue Verizon and not those who actually build the routers. Will they file against Newegg or BestBuy next?

[Panq @ Dec 8th 2007 12:07AM]

Actually, that's a good point. The target of the lawsuit should obviously whoever is distributing the GPL'd binaries without distributing the source. It's plausible that the routers were supplied to Verizon with the binaries and no source, in which case Actiontec is at fault. Either way, the solution is simple: When you agree to a copyright licence (in this case, the GPL), do what you've agreed to do.

[Mii @ Dec 10th 2007 4:32PM]

Unfortunately, just because Verizon wasn't told that there was GPL'd code in the routers, and they distributed them, they can be sued as if they intentionally did this themselves. Just like if you sold counterfeit merchandise purchased from an apparently legitimate reseller, you're still in trouble. Just like if I sold that actiontec router to a client to run in their offices, if I had enough assets to make suing me profitable, I could be a target. Just like when your supplier swaps your electrolyte and your capacitors explode after a year, you're the one sued. In none of these cases did the "middleman" do anything wrong, other than being duped by a supplier. In each of these cases, it's the middleman that gets the shaft, and if actiontec is a small company, Verizon can't even recover their losses.

[David Gerard @ Dec 8th 2007 7:25AM]

No, Verizon have actually altered the firmware to include a Verizon logo.

[Delvis343 @ Dec 7th 2007 8:51PM]

WIll the price for my service increase?

[VooDoo288 @ Dec 7th 2007 9:05PM]

Where does Actiontec stand in this arena? Does this mean if I wee to order one of these Actiontec routers from let's say Newegg, do they have to post/provide the GPL? Since UPS were to ship it to me, do they have to post/provide it also?

[Maestro @ Dec 7th 2007 9:07PM]

I have FIOS and never used the router they gave me. It also was a d-link, not actiontec.

[Prokanda @ Dec 7th 2007 9:15PM]

yeah.. the first wave of routers that came with the FiOS service were d-link.. they (for a while now) have been giving out an all-in-one actiontec unit that has some advanced features like the media sharing system. (you can have ONE dvr in the livingroom, and all the other boxes in the house can act like a dvr with the data off the box in the other room.. also, sharing videos over the boxes from computers).

they've had a lot of problems with the actiontec routers though... d-link's usually suck pretty bad too, but they had a lot less complaints with them.

I'm so glad I don't work in the FiOS call center anymore...

[acabtp @ Dec 7th 2007 9:45PM]

Man, it pisses me off that so many of this person's posts include "Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, it is not meant as legal advice or analysis and should not be taken as such." Of course it's not legal advice, it's a technology blog! It's sickening that there's enough legal precedent set by frivolous lawsuits and other such nonsense to warrant the addition of that disclaimer to any post that even remotely references any sort of legal proceedings or litigation. What the hell happened to common sense? Our society blows.

[murray @ Dec 8th 2007 12:25PM]

I too find it mind-boggling that this disclaimer is deemed necessary. Also, what the hell is an attorney doing writing for a tech blog?

[Nilay Patel @ Dec 8th 2007 12:32PM]

I disclaim only when there's an ongoing dispute involving a public company -- it would be bad if investors relied on my statements thinking it was legal advice and not just me blogging. That's all. I can stop putting it in if it bothers you so much, but you'll have to pay my malpractice bills for me.

[ethana2 @ Dec 7th 2007 9:51PM]

Let's hope Verizon handles this as sensibly as OLPC.

Release the source, no harm done.

[AlexL @ Dec 7th 2007 10:13PM]

Copyleft is rapidly becoming as lame and counter-innovation as copyright.

[Jeff @ Dec 8th 2007 3:34AM]

You're obviously completely misunderstanding the GPL.

GPL code *is copyrighted*. That's the whole point. It's licensed by the copyright holders, aka the writers of the software, under a specific set of terms. If you don't follow the terms, *you are violating copyright*. Same as anybody else who violates copyright. You only have permission to distribute in accordance with the license; if you distribute in a non-compliant way, you lose your permission to distribute and revert to being a software pirate. No different than anybody else who distributes without permission. Verizon are currently distributing this software without permission, just as you are if you share a copy of Windows over a peer to peer network.

Those who license software under the GPL are relying on the enforcement of copyright law. They are not at all "copyleft". Otherwise why do you think major companies like IBM and HP would be putting GPL code into various applications all over the place? It's free to use, but that doesn't mean it's not still copyrighted to those companies, and they have chosen a specific license that it can be used under.

There is very little open source software that is not copyrighted and licensed. This is one of the major misunderstandings of open source. Open source != public domain.

This is also why it's not really enough for Verizon to just release the source code and be done with it. That would be like saying it's enough for you to just stop distributing that copy of Windows over a P2P network and MS should then leave you alone. Large-scale copyright infringement has been going on for god knows how long here. If individuals are being made to pay thousands of dollars for sharing a few songs on P2P networks, how much should a large corporation have to pay for infringing copyright on a massive scale for a period of years?

[Alexander @ Dec 7th 2007 10:20PM]

Their punishment should be the forced rollout of fiber with 50/50 for $29 a month over the entire country.

[Steve @ Dec 7th 2007 11:44PM]

That whould be sweet!!! Considering there putting up the FIOS lines were I live.
There has been a swarm of Verizon trucks lattly.

[Alexander @ Dec 8th 2007 9:36AM]

God damn you Steve... God. Damn. You.

Cleveland needs some faster internet choices. We have Wideopenwest and TWC. Both suck ass.

[eMax @ Dec 7th 2007 10:28PM]

This is the problem with America. The only reason Verizon should be sued is if the people who made the original software contacted verizon multiple times and Verizon ignored them.

People should just SUE a company because they think they are doing something wrong.

There should be a law that if you do not directly contact and state the problem with the other party you are not allowed to sue them.

[andyt683 @ Dec 7th 2007 10:39PM]

"Our clients licensed BusyBox under the GPL to ensure that all users of the program can access and modify its source code," said Dan Ravicher, legal director of the SFLC in a statement. "Because Verizon chose not to respond to our concerns, we had no choice but to file a lawsuit to ensure that they comply with the GPL." (From Ars)

Seems pretty cut and dried, they asked nice, Verizon ignored, probably due to ignorance rather than anything intentional. Lawsuit will be dismissed as soon as they release the code, they've done this thing quite a few times before.

As for "Copyleft is rapidly becoming as lame and counter-innovation as copyright.", all they are trying to do is make sure all changes are available for all to use and further modify. Hardly counter-innovation.

[matt @ Dec 7th 2007 11:18PM]

does verizon have to provide it or does actiontec? I swear i have found the source on actiontec's web site before while searching for the latest firmware the verizon refuses to push out. now do not get me wrong i'm not 100% sure of that but i'm pretty sure of it. anyway it does bring up a good question if actiontec provides it does verizon need to as well?

[JTM @ Dec 8th 2007 12:12AM]

My Sony Bravia TV came with several pages of GPL license info. Including a list of applications in the TV.

My TV runs busybox! Go GPL go!

[Macona @ Dec 8th 2007 3:24AM]

The software in the actiontek has been modified by verizon to some extent like they do with every other thing they touch. They can resist putting their damn logo over everything. Since they modified the software they may be responsible as well for the GPL.

The router is pretty good though. If they only fixed the tiny tiny NAT i wouldnt have to use it as a bridge instead of a router. I reconfigured the actiontek as a bridge to a wrt54gl with dd-wrt and have had zero problems since.

[Gibson @ Dec 8th 2007 6:27PM]

Between this and the recent Sony "Ico" debacle, it's good to see that GPL is being taken seriously. It may be free, but it isn't a free-for-all.

[ChrisXS @ Dec 8th 2007 8:39PM]

IANAL

Huh huh. I said anal.. huh huh